W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > September 2004

Re: Minutes, Web Services Description Working Group 23 September 2004 telcon

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:11:19 +0600
Message-ID: <0d8301c4a216$761bf360$90414109@LANKABOOK>
To: "Allen Brookes" <abrookes@roguewave.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

"Allen Brookes" <abrookes@roguewave.com> writes:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 16. Issue LC43: Rename <definitions> to <description> [.1]
>
> [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC43
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC43>
>
>
>
> [Marsh] Make LC42 editorial, hand it to editors for resolution.
> [dbooth] me +1 to "description"
> [Allen] Roberto: concern that name change will lead to reopening other
name
> change issues.
> [Allen] Resolved to rename "definitions" to "description".
> [Allen] ACTION: Editors will implement change of "<definitions>" to
> "<description>" everywhere.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------

Shouldn't that be "descriptions"? A <description> element contains
many descriptions after all.

I'm personally not for changed it .. but I missed the call last nite
(not sure what I drank to lose my mind so much).

Just to give some historical perspective- when WSDL was first being
created this word was debated too .. in fact I wanted WSDL to stand for
"WS Definition L" because of <definitions> .. but the decision was
to call it "WS Description L" and to keep <definitions> because what's
inside <definitions> is a set of message, portType etc. *definitions*
which in turn *describe* various aspects of the Web service. Thus, WSDL
describes a Web service by defining a bunch of stuff. That's how
<definitions> and "WS Description L" were rationalized.

Sigh. Gotta stay off the bottle.

Sanjiva.
Received on Friday, 24 September 2004 09:10:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT